Is Atheism a fantasy?

paarsurrey1 · Post by **paarsurrey1** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:23 am

Is Atheism a fantasy?
If not, why not? Please

Regards

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:23 pm

KingandPriest wrote:Like tamy suggested, there is more evidence across human history of an innate or pre-programming for theism.

Why do people believe in invisible beings? - Stephen Law Ph.D.

Barrett suggests we have evolved to be overly sensitive to agency. We evolved in an environment containing many agents - family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce. So we evolved to be sensitive to them - oversensitive in fact. Hear a rustle in the bushes behind you and you instinctively spin round, looking for an agent. Most times, there's no one there - just the wind in the leaves. But, in the environment in which we evolved, on those few occasions when there was an agent present, detecting it might well save your life. Far better to avoid several imaginary predators than be eaten by a real one. Thus evolution will select for an inheritable tendency to not just detect - but over detect - agency.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/be ... ble-beings

Why are we here? = Agent assigned.
What happens when we die? = Agent assigned
Why did this bad thing happen? = Agent assigned
and on and on...

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:31 pm

Noted. In that case let me amend my original statement to read, "God by definition cannot be empirically detected."

Exactly as we should predict if said god doesn't exist.

That's because God by definition is not a physical entity within the observable universe.

If a god is claimed to have affected our reality, say with a global flood (or prayer) or what have you, said affects would be detectable and observable.

Any affects on our reality that a god has done that you can point to by chance?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:50 pm

KingandPriest wrote: [Replying to post 23 by Goat]

Goat wrote:Because, before you can say 'I don't know what I believe about something' you have to know what that something is.
Most agnostics would not say they "don't know what they believe". Instead from my experience many state they don't have enough information or proof to affirm or deny. This is starkly different.

Goat wrote:Define what God , not by what god does, but the substance of what God is, and using terms that are not merely conceptual and metaphysical. Can you?
To a degree the two are linked. To explain what God is and ignore or refuse to include what He does, ignores the basis that you are trying to discover.

If you are asking solely for a physiological answer to the question, what is God, then you may be able to ignore what He has done. But if you are asking who God is, or how can a person identify God, then you must include what He has done.

For example, if you are asking me what God is (in terms of composition or structure) then my answer to you would be, John 4:24 "God is Spirit".

If you are asking who God is, then my answer would be the creator of the universe and mankind. The title is representative of His actions and power. The tile of God is a title about position and authority. The person of God will be described by His actions. The attributes will be descriptive of both physiology and actions.

Well, there is a problem with the claim 'God is spirit'. The next step is 'what is spirit, can you show that spirit is anything but a metaphysical concept that only exists conceptually"??

The claim 'God is spriit' is basically meaningless, because 'Spirit' has the same issues that God does. Also, another one is 'God is love'.

Fundagelico · Post by **Fundagelico** » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:08 pm

Clownboat wrote:
Noted. In that case let me amend my original statement to read, "God by definition cannot be empirically detected."
Exactly as we should predict if said god doesn't exist.

And exactly as we should predict for such familiar realities as memories, historical events, axioms of logic, and, as we have discussing, scientific inferences. Admittedly I can't empirically detect having dinner with my wife yesterday, let alone the War of 1812. Should I conclude that belief in the occurrence of past events is a naÃ¯ve superstition?

That's because God by definition is not a physical entity within the observable universe.
If a god is claimed to have affected our reality, say with a global flood (or prayer) or what have you, said affects would be detectable and observable.

Any affects on our reality that a god has done that you can point to by chance?

Well, the two most significant miracles in Scripture are, arguably, the creation of the universe and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our existence in the universe is an effect of the creation, while the birth of the church in Jerusalem on the preaching of Christ resurrected is an effect of the resurrection (not to mention the fact that no one ever managed to find Jesus' corpse). The physical restoration of Israel after centuries of wandering and persecution was prophesied in various places in the OT, so that probably also qualifies as an effect of God's work.

KingandPriest · Post by **KingandPriest** » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:36 am

Goat wrote:
Well, there is a problem with the claim 'God is spirit'. The next step is 'what is spirit, can you show that spirit is anything but a metaphysical concept that only exists conceptually"??

There are many different ways to get more than a metaphysical concept. I could easily begin by pointing to when a person dies. In the medical community, death is not simply the cessation of heart beat or brain activity. There have been numerous cases of individuals being declared dead due to loss of heart beat or brain activity or both, only to later be found alive in the morgue or to revive after being declared dead on the operating table. In some cases these individuals describe what was happening to them, which medical experts conclude they could not have known. Patients who were clinically brain dead but could recount the conversations being had in the hospital room. These stories are evidence that one's conscious exist beyond the physical body. We call this consciousness a spirit. So it is not difficult to understand how God can exist in the same fashion we see in humans, considering the bible declares we were formed in His image and likeness, meaning we are also spiritual beings. We just happen to have a covering made of physical material.

If our consciousness were only physical, then one would expect no activity or memory to exist when the physical body has ceased to function. This is not what is observed all over the world.

Goat wrote:The claim 'God is spriit' is basically meaningless, because 'Spirit' has the same issues that God does. Also, another one is 'God is love'.

Meaningless because you reject the records, or because of preference?

Also, how is saying God is love meaningless?
This would be like saying God is creator is meaningless. When one is looking to the source of a thing (love) in this case, it is appropriate to point to the source as the epitome of that thing. If I were to say electricity is "power", is that a meaningless statement?

paarsurrey1 · Post by **paarsurrey1** » Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:52 pm

[Replying to post 31 by Clownboat]

What is this "KenRU" one mentioned in one's signatures, please/
Regards

KingandPriest · Post by **KingandPriest** » Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:56 am

[Replying to post 36 by paarsurrey1]

KenRu is another user on this forum. I believe clownbat was quoting a statement he may have made elsewhere on this site.

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:17 am

[Replying to post 34 by Fundagelico]

And exactly as we should predict for such familiar realities as memories, historical events, axioms of logic, and, as we have discussing, scientific inferences. Admittedly I can't empirically detect having dinner with my wife yesterday, let alone the War of 1812. Should I conclude that belief in the occurrence of past events is a naÃ¯ve superstition?

This is an interesting ploy, compare things we know, with 100% certainty, people eating, people fighting, memories, etc., with something we have not ever experienced and have no proof of.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:17 pm

KingandPriest wrote:
Goat wrote:
Well, there is a problem with the claim 'God is spirit'. The next step is 'what is spirit, can you show that spirit is anything but a metaphysical concept that only exists conceptually"??
There are many different ways to get more than a metaphysical concept. I could easily begin by pointing to when a person dies. In the medical community, death is not simply the cessation of heart beat or brain activity. There have been numerous cases of individuals being declared dead due to loss of heart beat or brain activity or both, only to later be found alive in the morgue or to revive after being declared dead on the operating table. In some cases these individuals describe what was happening to them, which medical experts conclude they could not have known. Patients who were clinically brain dead but could recount the conversations being had in the hospital room. These stories are evidence that one's conscious exist beyond the physical body. We call this consciousness a spirit. So it is not difficult to understand how God can exist in the same fashion we see in humans, considering the bible declares we were formed in His image and likeness, meaning we are also spiritual beings. We just happen to have a covering made of physical material.

If our consciousness were only physical, then one would expect no activity or memory to exist when the physical body has ceased to function. This is not what is observed all over the world.

All that means is, well, doctors make mistakes. You don't have to add a whole bunch of woo just because someone makes a mistake. I don't see any evidence that 'we just happen to have a covering made of physical material'.

Now, the stories are claims. What model shows that this is actually evidence of something beyond the physical, rather than just the actions of the physical brain?? How does that work?? Saying something is evidence for something is meaningless, unless you have a model of saying WHY.

We do have a model of WHY people have NDE's without going through woo.. because the brain still is alive, and in fact, when there is a model that explains those experiences without resorting to the argument from ignorance.

Goat wrote:The claim 'God is spriit' is basically meaningless, because 'Spirit' has the same issues that God does. Also, another one is 'God is love'.

Meaningless because you reject the records, or because of preference?

Also, how is saying God is love meaningless?
This would be like saying God is creator is meaningless. When one is looking to the source of a thing (love) in this case, it is appropriate to point to the source as the epitome of that thing. If I were to say electricity is "power", is that a meaningless statement?[/quote]

The phrase 'God is love' is meaningless, because you can't show what love is. And, electricity is power, because, we have a formula that can show 'This much electric allows up to perform this much activity/work, and can apply it directly. It is measurable, and can be demonstrated.

Saying "God is the creator' says nothing about what God is. It says that an action was attributed to god, but does now show how that can happen or how it can be tested, or how it would work. Electricity and power can be clearly defined, and the actions can be demonstrated.

Why, yes, saying God is love is meaningless. You can't show 'HOW, or WHY, or provide a model that has explanatory powers at all. With the definition for 'electricity is power', we can measure, have precise formulas, and demonstrate in a testable and repeatable manner how to utilize it.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:45 pm

Fundagelico wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
Noted. In that case let me amend my original statement to read, "God by definition cannot be empirically detected."
Exactly as we should predict if said god doesn't exist.

And exactly as we should predict for such familiar realities as memories, historical events, axioms of logic, and, as we have discussing, scientific inferences. Admittedly I can't empirically detect having dinner with my wife yesterday, let alone the War of 1812. Should I conclude that belief in the occurrence of past events is a naÃ¯ve superstition?
No. Has anyone actually suggested you do such a thing, or is this just a strawman?
Could you not find a way to address my claim, that an undetectable god concept is exactly what we would expect if said god didn't exist?

That's because God by definition is not a physical entity within the observable universe.
If a god is claimed to have affected our reality, say with a global flood (or prayer) or what have you, said affects would be detectable and observable.

Any affects on our reality that a god has done that you can point to by chance?

Well, the two most significant miracles in Scripture are, arguably, the creation of the universe
Great! Please point to the affects that this god that created our universe caused when he did this creation you claim he did.

and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Great! Please point to the affects on our reality that have been born out due to this god resurrecting a Jesus.

I'm curious though, why did you not address the scenarios that I mentioned. If a god created a flood, that certainly would have affected our reality. Please show these affects.

Also prayer. If praying to your favorite god concept has any affect, please point to these the studies that have shown that prayer to your preferred god affects our reality in any way shape or form.
Our existence in the universe is an effect of the creation,
Please evidence this claim of yours. Sounds to me like nothing more than your faith talking.

while the birth of the church in Jerusalem on the preaching of Christ resurrected is an effect of the resurrection

Please evidence this claim of yours that a church was born because a human was sacrificed to a god and later claimed to be resurreted. Sounds to me like nothing more than your faith talking.
(not to mention the fact that no one ever managed to find Jesus' corpse).
Are you arguing that Jesus never existed? That is possible I suppose, but you will need to do better than not finding a corpse otherwise now Paul Bunyan was also a real person by your way of thought.

The physical restoration of Israel after centuries of wandering and persecution was prophesied in various places in the OT, so that probably also qualifies as an effect of God's work.
Please evidence this claim of yours. Sounds to me like nothing more than your faith talking. It sounds to me that you just cannot possibly imagine a country being restored without a god working. This is odd to me. Why can this not happen without the gods being involved?